From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schenck v. Hill, Lent & Troescher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1987
130 A.D.2d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

May 26, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.).


Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term properly disqualified the third-party defendant law firm Meiselman, Boland, Reilly Pittoni (hereinafter Meiselman) from representing the plaintiffs in their legal malpractice action against the defendants. Once Meiselman was impleaded as a third-party defendant, the plaintiffs had the right, pursuant to CPLR 1009, in the words of Special Term, "to assert directly any claim they might have" against their own counsel. This placed the Meiselman law firm in the position of deciding whether the plaintiffs should amend their complaint so as to sue it. A clear conflict of interest was established, which warranted Special Term's determination.

Subsequent to oral argument of the instant appeal, this court received an affidavit from the plaintiffs dated April 7, 1987, wherein they state as follows: "we voluntarily and willingly hereby waive any rights we may have as against" the Meiselman law firm. However, this affidavit is dehors the record, and cannot be considered by this court in the determination of the instant appeal. The plaintiffs' remedy, if they be so advised, is to make an appropriate motion before Special Term.

We have reviewed the third-party defendants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schenck v. Hill, Lent & Troescher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1987
130 A.D.2d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Schenck v. Hill, Lent & Troescher

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD K. SCHENCK et al., Appellants, v. HILL, LENT TROESCHER, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 26, 1987

Citations

130 A.D.2d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Schenck v. Hill, Lent & Troescher

By memorandum decision this court determined that the Meiselman firm should be disqualified as plaintiffs'…

Navcan.DC, Inc. v. Rinde

Dkt. No. 109. Plaintiffs conclude that Defendant Rinde cannot competently advise Defendant CKR whether to…